Skip to content

Old vs. New Video Games

13»

Comments

  • Son_of_ImoenSon_of_Imoen Member Posts: 1,806
    edited January 2013
    I voted for liking older games more, but actually there's a particular era I like, roughly 1998-2005. Before that, in the era of DOS-games, I wasn't involved in PC gaming (I didn't own a PC before I was 30-something). Without the nostalgia for DOS, they are very hard to get into, interface-wise. Somewhere around 2002 was when I started PC gaming, buying mostly games in sales, finding gems now and then but there were bad ones also. Many game-discs I just threw away, they were that bad. It's true the good ones are the one that stick to the memory: Age of Empires I & II, Battlefield 1942 & Vietnam, Rome Total War.

    There's also some newer games I like a lot, like Battlefield 2, Dragon Age (especially the vast lore woven into it's 'Codex'), Fallout 3 (the free roaming). But this is what my problem is with newer games:

    Games beyond 2005 have put many emphasis on the graphics. They mostly resemble interactive movies: you're standing inside the world instead of looking down on it. The downside of detailed 3D visuals for me - with my mental handicap - is there's far too much visual stimuli that tire my mind. I just can't play them days on end. If I play Fallout 3 or Dragon Age, I like the view very much, but it might be weeks before I pick the game backup, as my mind needs time to recover from all the views. They look gorgeous, but that's exactly the problem: it overstimulates and distracts the senses too much.

    DJKajuruFear
  • H0RSEH0RSE Member Posts: 115
    edited January 2013
    DJKajuru said:

    I'd like to compare DIABLO with its newest sequel DIABLO 3.

    I found the original Diablo to be extremely lackluster, and would actually prefer D3 over it. D2 (especially post LoD) however, is definitively the best in the series.

  • SylphSylph Member Posts: 210
    I don't really care how old a game is as long as I enjoy playing it :) That being said, sometimes I still find myself mentally shaking a cane at the youngsters and going on about how back in my day, we didn't have a fancy tutorial level, we had to pick up a manual and READ it.
  • FentonFenton Member Posts: 38
    To be honest I prefer more older games these days. BG EE is an good example of bringing back that magic of exploration and old school combat. Today's games either is all glitter no pow or let me guide you though the first level than the second and finally the last level. Where's the challenge in that?
    DJKajuru
  • H0RSEH0RSE Member Posts: 115
    edited January 2013
    Fenton said:

    To be honest I prefer more older games these days. BG EE is an good example of bringing back that magic of exploration and old school combat. Today's games either is all glitter no pow or let me guide you though the first level than the second and finally the last level. Where's the challenge in that?

    My argument to a line of thinking like this is, "why do games have to be challenging in order to be enjoyable?" Is there some golden rule I was unaware of? Games are primarily (or perhaps exclusively) a form of entertainment, thus their degree of challenge and/or complexity is completely optional, with exception to the case where challenge or difficulty is a concept the game is built around. Sadly though, the mindset of many gamers today where such merits are treated a prerequisites in determining the greatness or enjoyability of a game, is a real shame.

    Games are meant to be fun, and if players 'need' a challenge in order to feel fulfilled in this respect, well then I kinda feel a sense of pity for them.
Sign In or Register to comment.